THE UNITY OF THE BOOK
OF GENESIS
BY
WILLIAM HENRY GREEN, D.D., LL.D.
PROFESSOR
OF ORIENTAL AND OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE IN
THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1895
COPYRIGHT, 1895, BY
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
[Digitally prepared by Dr. Ted Hildebrandt
TROW DIRECTORY
PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY
PREFACE
ALL tradition, from whatever source it is
derived,
whether inspired
or uninspired, unanimously affirms that
the first
five books of the Bible were written by one man
and that man
was Moses. There is no counter-testimony
in any
quarter. From the predominant character
of their
contents
these books are commonly called the Law.
All
the statutes
contained in them are expressly declared to
have been
written by Moses or to have been given by the
LORD to
Moses. And if the entire law is his, the
history,
which is
plainly preparatory for, or subsidiary to, the
law, must be
his likewise.
The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch
has, how-
ever, been
challenged in modern times in the name of
the higher
criticism on two distinct and independent
grounds. One is that of the document hypothesis in its
various
forms and modifications, which occupies itself
with the
narrative portion of the Pentateuch, and on
the ground
of literary criteria claims that this is not the
product of
anyone writer, but that it has been compiled
from
different documents, which are clearly distinguish-
able in
diction, style, conception, plan, and design, and
which belong
to widely separated ages. The other is
that of the
development hypothesis, which has attached
itself to
the preceding, but deals characteristically with a
different portion
of the Pentateuch and employs a differ-
ent style of
argument. Its field of operation is the
laws,
which it
claims were not and could not have been given by
Moses, nor
at anyone period in the history of
vi PREFACE
It professes
to trace the growth of this legislation from
simple and
primitive forms to those which are more
complex and
which imply a later and more developed
civilization. And it confidently affirms that these laws
could not
have been committed to writing in their pres-
ent form for
many centuries after the age of Moses.
These hypotheses are discussed in a
general way in my
"Higher
Criticism of the Pentateuch," where the fallacy
and
inconclusiveness of the reasoning by which they are
defended and
the falsity of the conclusions deduced from
them are
exposed. In order to a complete
refutation of
these
hypotheses it is necessary to show still further by
a detailed
examination their inapplicability to, and in-
compatibility
with, the phenomena of the Pentateuch,
and that, so
far from solving the question of its origin,
they are
destitute of any real basis; they find no support
in the
Pentateuch itself, but are simply the creations of
learned
ingenuity and a lively imagination.
The present treatise occupies itself
exclusively with
the document
hypothesis, and aims to prove that the
book of
Genesis is not a compilation from different docu-
ments, but
is the continuous work of a single writer.
The
demonstration that this hypothesis has no foothold
in Genesis
effectually overturns it for the rest of the
Pentateuch,
or, if the critics please, the Hexateuch.
It
took its
rise in Genesis; the most plausible arguments
in its favor
are drawn from that book; and the verdict
rendered by
that book substantially settles the case for
those that
follow. It is on the basis of the
assumption
that it is
firmly established in Genesis that it is carried
through the
Hexateuch. If that assumption is proved
to be false,
the hypothesis collapses entirely.
What is here proposed is a critical study of Genesis
from
beginning to end, chapter by chapter and section
by
section. The history of critical opinion
is given in
PREFACE
vii
full in the
more important passages, and is throughout
traced
sufficiently to place before the reader the various
views that
have been entertained, together with the
grounds
adduced on their behalf. Pains have been
taken
to carefully
collate and frankly state whatever has been
urged in
defence of the hypothesis by its ablest and
most eminent
advocates on each successive passage; and
this is then
subjected to a thorough and candid exami-
nation. The reader will thus be put in possession of
the
reasons for
and against it to the best of the writer's abil-
ity, and can
form his own conclusion. The writer,
while
aiming at
entire fairness in presenting both sides of the
argument,
does not conceal his own assured conviction
of the
overwhelming preponderance in favor of the faith
of ages and
against the divisive hypothesis of modern
times.
As the alleged criteria of the different
documents are
most fully
and clearly stated by Dr. Dillmann, his pres-
entation of
them is followed throughout the book, unless
where some
other authority is expressly mentioned.
To avoid constant circumlocution P, J, E,
and D are
frequently
spoken of as though they were the real en-
tities that
the critics declare them to be, and passages
are said to
belong to one or the other because critics so
affirm. Such language adopted for brevity must not be
understood
as an admission that the documents so called
ever
existed.
In replying to the objections of Bishop
Colenso in
1863 the
author ventured the suggestion that he might
at some
future time prepare a work on the criticism of
the
Pentateuch. Since that time the
positions then
taken by
leading critics have been abandoned by them-
selves, and
their whole conception of the origin and con-
stitution of
the Pentateuch has been revolutionized.
The complex character of the Pentateuchal
question
viii PREFACE
and the
tedious minuteness required in its thorough ex-
amination
doubtless supply the reason why so many
critics are
content with repeating or building upon the
conclusions
of their predecessors without investigating
for
themselves the soundness of the basis on which these
conclusions
rest. The author frankly confesses for
him-
self that,
while he felt at every point the weakness and
unsatisfactory
character of the arguments of the divisive
critics, he
was long deterred by the complexity of the
task from
undertaking to prepare such a treatise as the
nature of
the case required. He might have
continued
still to
shrink from it but for the proposal, in 1888,
by his
friend Dr. W. R. Harper, of an amicable dis-
cussion of
the subject in the columns of the Hebraica.
The kindly
proposal was accepted, though with some
hesitation
lest the cause whose defence was thus under-
taken might
suffer from unskilful advocacy. It
seemed,
however, to
involve less responsibility and to be a less
onerous
undertaking to engage in such a discussion,
piecemeal,
in the columns of a quarterly journal, at
the
solicitation of a friend, than to set myself to the
preparation
of a work on the entire subject of my own
motion. The discussion thus begun was continued at
intervals,
step by step, through the whole of the narrative
portion of
the Pentateuch. Though convinced at the
outset of
the unsoundness in the main of the arguments
urged on
behalf of the critical partition of the Penta-
teuch by its
principal defenders, I did not know but
there might
be some fire where there was so much
smoke, and
some possible foundation for the positive
assertions
in which the critics are so prone to indulge.
The
discussion was accordingly begun with no absolute
prepossession
on my part for or against the existence of
Pentateuchal
documents. One thing was clear to my
mind from
the beginning, that the Pentateuch as inspired
PREFACE ix
of God was a
true and trustworthy record; everything
else was
left to be determined by the evidence which it
should
supply. As the discussion proceeded I
found my-
self unable
to discover sufficient reason anywhere for the
assumption
that the Pentateuch was a compilation from
pre-existing
documents; and by the time that my task
was
completed I had settled down in the assured belief
that the
so-called documents were a chimera, and that
the
much-vaunted discovery of Astruc was no discovery
at all, but
an ignis fatuus which has misled critics ever
since into a
long and weary and fruitless search through
fog and
mire, that might better be abandoned for a
forward
march on terra firma.
The discussion in the Hebraica
prepared the way for
the volume
now offered to the public, in which the
attempt is
made to treat the question with more thor-
oughness
than was possible in the limitations necessarily
imposed in a
crowded quarterly. The ground there
traversed
has been carefully re-examined and explored
at afresh in
the light shed upon it by the ablest minds on
either side
of the controversy. The prominence ac-
corded to
German scholars is due to the fact that the
have been
the chief laborers in the field. The
various
partition
hypotheses, after Astruc's conjecture, as he
himself
termed it, had pointed out the way, have been
originated
and elaborated by German scholars. And if
they have
failed to put them upon a solid basis, it is but
from no lack
of learning, ingenuity, or perseverance, but
much from
the inherent weakness of the cause.
It is hoped that this volume may prove a
serviceable
text-book
for the study of criticism; that it may meet
the wants of
theological students and ministers who de-
sire to
acquaint themselves thoroughly with a subject of
such
prominence and importance; and that it may like-
wise prove
helpful to intelligent laymen who, omitting
x PREFACE
the
discussion of Hebrew words that are necessarily in-
troduced,
may be led by it to a better understanding of
the book of
Genesis in its connection and the mutual
relation of
its several parts, and be helped in the solu-
tion of
difficulties and the removal of objections.
It
stands on
the common ground, dear alike to all who re-
gard the
Pentateuch as the word of God through Moses,
whether Jew
or Christian, Catholic or Protestant, clergy-
man or
layman. If by the divine blessing it
shall be
made to
contribute in any measure to the elucidation or
defence of
this part of Holy Scripture, or to the confir-
mation of the
faith of any, or to the relief of such as
may have
been perplexed or troubled by anxious doubts
or
misgivings, the author will be profoundly grateful to
Him to whom
all praise is due.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
THE BOOK OF
GENESIS, 1
The creation of the heavens and the
earth (Gen. i. 1-ii. 3),
words indicative of P, 4.
I
THE
GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH (CH. II. 4-IV.) 7
Primitive state and fall of man (ch. ii.
4-iii. 24), 7; false critical
methods, 7; no duplicate account of the
creation,
9; no discrepancies, 20; words and phrases
indicative of J,
29 ; mutual relation of this and the
preceding section, 33.
Cain and Abel--Cain's descendants (ch. iv.),
36; marks of J, 39.
II
THE
GENERATIONS OF ADAM (CH. V. 1- VI. 8), 42
Adam to Noah (ch. v.), 42; the Cainite
and Sethite gen-
ealogies, 43; duplicate statements, 47;
primeval chronology,
49; marks of P, 50. The Sons of God and the Daughters of
Men (ch. vi. 1-8), 51; marks of J, 61.
III
THE
GENERATIONS OF NOAR (CH. VI. 9-IX. 29), 65
The flood (ch. vi. 9-ix. 17), 65; the
critical partition of
ch. vi. 5-ix. 17, 66; J not continuous, 71;
P not contin-
uous, 78; no superfluous repetitions, 83 ;
the divine names,
88; no discrepancies, 90; difference of
diction, 94; marks
of P, 96; marks of J, 116; numerical
correspondence, 121;
the Assyrian flood tablets? 122, Noah after the flood (ch.
ix. 18-29), 127.
xii CONTNETS
IV
PAGE
THE
GENERATIONS 0F THE SONS 0F NOAH. (CH. X. l-XI. 9), 131
Origin of
nations (ch. x.), 131 ; marks of P, 141 ; marks
of J, 143.
V
THE
GENERATIONS 0F SHEM (CH. XI. 10-26), 146
Shem to Abram (ch. xi. 10-26), 146.
VI
THE
GENERATIONS OF TERAH (Cx. XI. 27-XXV. 11), 148
Preliminary remarks, 148; the divine
names, 151; the crit-
ical partition, 154; no discrepancies,
161. The family of
Terah (ch. xi. 27-32), 168. The call of Abram and his jour-
neys (ch.
xii.), 171; critical partition of vs. 1-9, 172; marks
of P, 175;
marks of J, 181. Abram in
182; marks
of J, 185. Separation from
grounds of
partition, 186; marks of P, 192; marks of J, 193.
Abram's
rescue of
nant of
Jehovah (ch. xv.), 202. Birth of Ishmael
(ch. xvi.),
208; marks of
P, 213; marks of J, 215. Covenant sealed
by Abraham
(ch. xvii.), 217; style of P, 226; marks of P,
231. Visit to Abraham and destruction of
1-xix. 28),
236; marks of J, 240.
38), 246;
marks of J, 250. Abraham with Abimelech,
king
of Gerar
(ch. xx.), 250; critical embarrassment, 250; diction
of ch. xx.,
252; not referable to a distinct document, 254;
marks of E,
259. Birth of Isaac and dismissal of
Ishmael (ch.
xxi. 1-21),
262; critical perplexity, 262; division impossible,
266 ; marks
of P, 269; marks of J, 269; marks of E, 270.
Abraham at
276. Sacrifice of Isaac (ch. xxii. 1-19), 277; the
critical par-
tition, 278;
marks of E, 286; marks of R, 288; no proof of
separate
documents, 290. Family of Nahor (ch.
xxii. 20-24),
291; marks
of J, 292. Death and burial of Sarah
(ch. xxiii.),
293; marks
of P, 296. Marriage of Isaac (ch.
xxiv.), 298;
marks of J,
304. Conclusion of Abraham's life (ch.
xxv.
1-11), 307;
marks of P, 310.
CONTENTS xiii
VII
Page
THE
GENERATIONS OF ISHMAEL (CH. XXV. 12-18), 312
Marks of P, 313.
VIII
THE
GENERATIONS OF IsAAC (CH. XXV. 19-XXXV.), 314
Esau and Jacob (ch. xxv. 19-34), 314;
marks of P, 320;
marks of J, 321. Isaac in Gerar and
1-33), 322; marks of J, 326. Jacob's blessing and depart-
ure (ch. xxvi. 34-xxviii. 9), 328; marks of
P, 332; marks of
of J, 333; marks of E, 333. Jacob's dream (ch. xxviii.
10-22), 335; marks of J, 341; marks of E,
342. Jacob in
marks of J. 353; marks of E, 354. Jacob's return from
362; the covenant of Laban and Jacob, 365;
the divine
names, 369; marks of P, 370; marks of E,
370. Meeting
of Jacob and Esau (ch. xxxii. 4-xxxiii. 17),
372; Jacob
wrestling with the angel, 377; no proof of a
parallel narra-
tive, 380; the divine names, 380; marks of
J, 381. The
rape of Dinah (ch. xxxiii 18-xxxiv.), 382;
Jacob's arrival
in Shechem, 383; critical difficulties, 386;
divergence of the
critics, 388; not composite, 398; marks of
P, 402; marks
of J, 403.
Jacob at
404.
Jacob at
of partition irrelevant, 411; conclusion of
the section, 412.
IX
THE
GENERATIONS OF ESAtJ (CH. XXXVI.-XXXVII.1), 415
Opinions of critics, 415; unity of the
chapter, 417 ; no dis-
crepancies, 420; no anachronism, 425.
X
THE
GENERATIONS OF JACOB (CR. XXXVII. 2-L.), 430
The unity of plan, 430; lack of
continuity in the docu-
ments, 434;
the divine names, 434; diction and style, 435.
Joseph sold
into
xiv CONTENTS
PAGE
among critics, 437; grounds of partition,
447; marks of J,
450.
The narrative of Judah and Tamar (ch. xxxviii), 452;
no lack of order, 452; no anachronism, 454;
marks of J,
455.
Joseph is cast into prison (ch. xxxix.), 457; no dis-
crepancies, 457; the divine names, 459;
marks of J, 462.
Dreams of the butler and baker (ch. xl.),
463; no discrep-
ancy, 464; no anachronism, 466; diction,
467. Pharaoh's
dreams (ch. xli.), 467; grounds of
partition, 468. Journeys
of Jacob's sons to
ancy, 475; the divine names, 482; marks of J
and E, 483.
Joseph makes himself known (ch. xlv.), 487;
marks of E,
491.
Removal to
498; marks of E, 498; marks of P, 498. Settlement in
of J, 502.
Joseph's arrangements in
504; marks of E, 506; marks of J, 507; marks
of P, 509. Jacob
charges Joseph and adopts his sons (ch.
xlvii. 28-xlviii.
22), 510; marks of P, 518; marks of E, 518;
marks of J,
519.
Jacob's blessing and death (ch. xlix.), 519; no vati-
cinium post eventum, 521; marks of P,
526. The burial of
Jacob and death of Joseph (ch.l.), 526;
marks of J, 529;
marks of E, 530.
CONCLUSION, 531
Grounds of partition, 531; repetitions
and discrepancies,
532; the divine names, 538; diction, style,
and conception,
548; continuity of Genesis, 554; chasms in
the documents,
556; when and where produced, 560. Summary of the argu-
ment, 571.
INDEX.
I. THE DIVINE NAMES, 573
II. STYLE,
CONCEPTION AND THE RELATION OF PASSAGES, 573
III.
CHARACTERISTIC WORDS AND PHRASES, 574
IV. THE
ENGLISH EQUIVALENTS, 579
WORKS REFERRED TO IN THIS
VOLUME
*** These
works are here arranged in the order of their publication.
The reader
can thus see at a glance where each belongs in the history of
critical
opinion.
Matthew
Poole, Annotations upon the Holy Bible, First Edition, 1683.
Astruc,
Conjectures sur leg Memoires Originaux, dont il paroit, que
Moyse s'est servi pour composer le Livre
de la Genese, 1753.
Harmer,
Observations on Divers Passages of Scripture, Second Edi-
tion, 1776.
Ilgen, Die
Urkunden des ersten Buchs von Moses in ihrer Urgestalt,
1798.
Vater,
Commentar uber den Pentateuch, Theil i, ii., 1802; Theil iii,
1805.
Eichhorn,
Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Dritte Ausgabe, 1803;
Vierte Ausgabe, 1823.
DeWette,
Beitrage zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Erstes Band-
chen, 1806; Zweiter Band, 1807.
Ewald, Die
Komposition der Genesis kritisch untersucht, 1823.
Gramberg,
Libri Geneseos Secundum Fontes rite dignoscendos Adum-
bratio nova, 1828.
F. H. Ranke,
Untersuchungen fiber den Pentateuch aus dem Gebiete
der hoheren Kritik, Erster Band, 1831;
Zweiter Band, 1840.
Hengstenberg,
Die Authentie des Pentateuches, Erster Band, 1836;
Zweiter Band, 1839.
Movers.
Review of von Bohlen's Genesis in Zeitschrift fur Philosophie
und Katholische Theologie, 1836.
Havernick,
Handbuch der historish-kritischen Einleitung in das Alte
Testament, Erster Theil, Zweite Abtheilung,
1837.
Tuch,
Kommentar uber die Genesis, 1838; Zweite Aufiage, 1871.
Stahelin,
Kritische Untersuchungen uber den Pentateuch, die Bucher
Josua, Richter, Samuels, und del Konige,
1843.
Kurtz, Die
Einheit der Genesis, 1846.
Winer,
Biblisches Realworterbuch, Dritte Aufiage, 1847.
Ewald,
Jahrbucher del Biblischen Wissenchaft for 1851-52.
xvi WORKS REFERRED TO IN THIS VOLUME
Knobel, Die
Genesis, 1852.
Delitzsch,
Die Genesis, 1852, Dritte Ausgabe, 1860; Vierte Ausgabe,
1872.
Neuer Commentar uber die Genesis, 1887.
Kurtz,
Geschichte des Alten Bundes, Erster Band, Zweite Aufiage, 1853.
Hupfeld, Die
Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung,
1853.
Robinson,
Biblical Researches in
gions, 1856.
Bohmer, Das
Erste Buch der Thora, Ubersetzung seiner drei Quellen-
schriften und der Redactionszusatze mit
kritischen, exegetischen,
historischen Erorterungen, 1862.
Noldeke,
Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments, 1869. Merx,
Article on Dinah in Schenkel's
Bibel-Lexikon, 1869.
Schrader,
Editor of the "eighth thoroughly improved, greatly en-
larged and in part wholly transformed
edition" of DeWette's
Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen
Einleitung in die kanonischen
und apokryphischen Bucher des Alten
Testaments, 1869.
Kayser, Das
vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichte Israels und seine
Erweiterungen, ein Beitrag zur
Pentateuch-kritik, 1874.
George Smith,
Translation of the flood tablets in his Assyrian Dis-
coveries, 1875; the Chaldean Account of
Genesis, 1876; and Records
of the Past, vol. vii., 1876.
Wellhausen,
Die Composition des Hexateuchs, in the Jahrbticher fur
Deutsche Theologie, 1876-1877; republished
in Skizzen und
Vorarbeiten, Zweites Heft, 1885; and again
in Die Composition des
Hexateuchs und der hist orischen Bucher
des .Alten Testa. ments,
1889.
Kuenen, The
Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish State, trans-
lated by A. H. May, vol. i, 1874.
Dillmann,
Die Genesis, first edition published as the third edition of
Knobel's Commentary, 1875; second edition
(Knobel's fourth),
1882; third edition (Knobel's fifth),
1886.
Wellhausen,
Geschichte Israels, 1878, republished as Prolegomena zur
Geschichte
Oort, The
Bible for Learners, English translation, 1878.
Colenso, The
Pentateuch and Book of Joshua critically examined,
Part Vii., 1879.
Reuss, Die
Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments, 1881.
Haupt, Der
keilinschriftliche Sintfluthbericht, in Schrader's Die Keil-
inschriften und das Alte Testament, 1883.
WORKS REFERRED TO IN TH1S VOLUME xvii
Budde, Die
Biblische Urgeschichte (Gen. i-xii 5), 1883.
Kuenen, An
Historico-critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composi-
tion of the Hexateuch. Translated by P. H.
Wicksteed, 1886.
Vatke,
Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1886.
Stade,
Geschichte des Volkes
Kittel,
Geschichte der Hebraer, 1888.
Harper, The
Pentateuchal Question, in the Hebraica for 1888-1892.
Kautzsch und
Socin, Die Genesis mit ausserer Unterscheidung der
Quellenschriften, 1888; Zweite Aufiage,
1891. Reproduced in
English as Genesis Printed in Colors,
showing the original sources
from which it is supposed to have been
compiled, with an intro-
duction by E. C. Bissell.
Cornill,
Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1891.
Driver, An
Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 1891.
Strack, Die
Genesis, 1892.
Kuenen,
Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Biblischen Wissenchaft.
Aus dem Hollandischen ubersetzt von K.
Budde, 1894.
THE UNITY OF THE BOOK OF
GENESIS
THE BOOK OF GENESIS
THE history opens with an introductory
section (ch.
i.-ii. 3),
which declares how God in the beginning created
the heavens
and the earth as the theatre upon which it
was to be
transacted. This is followed by ten
sections
of unequal
length, which make up the rest of the book
of Genesis,
and are introduced by titles of a uniform
pattern. These titles are as follows:
1. Gen. ii. 4. These are the generations of the heaven
and of the
earth.
2. Gen. v. 1. This is the book of the generations of
Adam.
3. Gen. vi. 9. These are the generations of Noah.
4.
Gen. x. 1. These are the
generations of the sons of
Noah.
5. Gen. xi. 10. These are the generations of Shem.
6.
Gen. xi. 27. These are the generations
of Terah.
7. Gen. xxv. 12. These are the generations of Ish-
mael.
8. Gen. xxv. 19. These are the generations of Isaac.
9. Gen. xxxvi. 1. These are the generations of Esau.1
10. Gen. xxxvii. 2. These are the generations of
Jacob.
1 Repeated, ver. 9, for a
reason to be explained when that
chapter
comes under consideration.
2 THE BOOK OF
GENESIS
These titles are designed to emphasize and
render
more
prominent and palpable an important feature of
the book,
the genealogical character of its history.
This
results from
its main design, which is to trace the line of
descent of
the chosen race from the beginning to the
point where
it was ready to expand to a great nation,
whose future
organization was already foreshadowed, its
tribes being
represented in the twelve sons of Jacob, and
its tribal
divisions in their children. The
genealogies
contained in
the book are not merely incidental or sub-
ordinate,
but essential, and the real basis of the whole.
They are not
to be regarded as addenda to the narrative,
scraps of
information introduced into it; they constitute
the skeleton
or framework of the history itself. They
are not
separate productions culled from different sources,
and here
inserted by the author as he found them.
From
whatever
quarters the materials may have been obtained
they were
cast into their present form by the writer him-
self, as is
evident from the uniformity of the construc-
tion of those
relating to the chosen race on the one hand,
and those of
alien races on the other, together with the
unbroken
continuity of the former. These exhibit at
once the
kinship of
all being of
one blood and sprung from one common
stock, and
their separation from the rest of mankind for
a special
divine purpose, God's gracious choice of them
to be his
peculiar people until the time should arrive
for
spreading the blessing of Abraham over all the
earth.
There is, accordingly, a regular series of
genealogies of
like
structure, or rather one continuous genealogy extend-
ing from
Adam to the family of Jacob. This is
inter-
rupted or
suspended from time to time, as occasion re-
quires, for
the sake of introducing or incorporating facts
of the
history at particular points where they belong;
THE BOOK OF GENESIS 3
after which
it is resumed again precisely at the same
point, and
proceeds regularly as before until it reaches
its utmost
limit, thus embracing the entire history with-
in
itself. Thus, for example, the genealogy
in ch. v.
states in
identically recurring formulae the age of each
parent at
the birth of his child, the number of years that
he lived
subsequently, and the length of his entire life.
But when the
name of Noah is reached, the record is,
ver. 32,
"And Noah was five hundred years old; and
Noah begat
Shem, Ham, and Japheth," three sons being
mentioned
instead of one, as was uniformly the case be-
fore. And here the genealogy abruptly terminates
with-
out the
further statements that analogy would lead us
to expect,
how long Noah lived after the birth of his
children,
and how many years he lived in all. This
is
not the end
of a genealogical fragment, disconnected from
all that
follows. It is merely interrupted for a
time in
order to
introduce the account of the deluge, which so
intimately
concerned Noah and his three sons; after
which the
missing members are supplied, and the series
resumed in
substantially the same form as before (ix. 28,
29). Again, the genealogy continued in xi. 10 sqq.
breaks
off (ver.
26) precisely as it had done before, by stating
the age of a
father at the birth of his three sons.
"And
Terah lived
seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and
and the fact
of his death being postponed to ver. 32, in
all the
order to introduce some facts respecting Terah and par-
ticularly
respecting his sons, which had an important
bearing on
the subsequent history. And the entire
life
of Abraham
is fitted into the next link of the genealogy:
his age at
the birth of his son Isaac (xxi. 5), whom he
begat (xxv.
19), and his full age at the time of his death
(xxv. 7, 8).
4 THE BOOK OF GENESIS
THE CREATION
OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH
(CH. I. 1-II. 3).
The critics assign this opening section
of Genesis to P,
because of
its unvarying use of Elohim, as well as on the
ground of
its style and diction. They also include
in
this section
ii. 4a, which they regard as a summary state-
ment of its
contents. This and the alleged
difference of
style
between this section and the next can best be con-
sidered
hereafter. For the present it will be
sufficient to
give
attention to the diction. Dr. Dillmann
adduces the
following
words and expressions as indicative of P:
Nymi
kind,
species (vs. 11,
12, 21,24, 25); Cr,xAhA ty>aHa beast of the
earth (vs. 24, 25, 30); CrawA creep, swarm, bring forth abun-
dantly, and Wm,r, moving creature
(vs. 20, 21); WmarA creep,
and Wm,r, creeping thing (vs. 21, 24-26, 28, 30); wbaKA
subdue
(ver. 28); hlak;xA
food (ver. 30); hv,q;mi gathering together, col-
lection (ver. 10); hbArAv; hrAPA be fruitful and multiply (vs. 22,
28) hbAqen;U rkAzA male and female (ver. 27); lyDib;hi divide (vs.
4, 6, 7, 14,
18); tUmD; likeness (ver. 26). .
The distribution of these words in the
Hexateuch is instructive.
That which
is rendered "likeness" occurs
besides in
it only Gen. v. 1, 3, where it is used with ex-
press allusion
to i. 26. "Subdue" occurs
besides in the
Hexateuch
only Num. xxxii. 22, 29 (a chapter in which,
according to
the critics, the documents P, J, and E are
intermingled,
and both of these verses contain what are
reckoned
indications of JE), and Josh. xviii. 1, an iso-
lated verse
in a JE paragraph. The rest of these
words
and phrases
occur nowhere else in Genesis, unless it be
in the
account of the flood. And the reason why most
Q of them
are to be found there is obvious. The
different
classes of
land animals brought into being at the creation
perished in
the flood, and it is natural that they should
be mentioned
in both cases; like mention is also made
THE CREATION (CH. I. 1-II. 3) 5
of
"food" as necessary to life; the perpetuation of the
species
leads to the reference to the sexes. The
full
phrase, as
used in Gen. i. "Be fruitful and multiply and
fill,"
or "replenish," only occurs again (ix. 1), in the
blessing
pronounced upon mankind after the flood, which
was as
appropriate as after the creation; the phrase "Be
fruitful and
multiply" occurs besides only in application
to Abraham
and his descendants, where it is equally in
place. Such of these words as occur elsewhere are
found
only in the
ritual law. "Food" and
"kind" and differ-
ent sorts of
animals are, as a matter of course, spoken of,
where
direction is given in respect to what mayor may
not be
eaten; and sex in like manner in prescribing the
animals to
be offered in sacrifice, or the purifications at the
birth of
children, or the rite of circumcision.
"Divide"
does not
occur in the narrative of the flood, but is found
again in the
ritual law with reference to the distinctions
there made
in regard to clean and unclean, holy and un-
holy or
common, or separating to special functions or
purposes, or
to cleavage in sacrifice. The word
translated
"gathering
together" is found but twice in the Hexateuch
apart from
Gen. i., viz., Ex. vii. 19, Lev. xi. 36, where
collections
of water are referred to, and nowhere else in
this sense
in the entire Old Testament.
It is manifest from the foregoing that
the occurrence
of these
words is determined, not by the predilection of
a particular
writer, but by the subject which calls for
their
employment. They belong not to the
characteris-
tics of a
document, but are the common property of all
who use the
language, and may be found whenever there
is occasion
to describe the object denoted by them.
Their
absence from all the paragraphs or clauses as-
signed by
the critics to J or E is to be accounted for
precisely as
their absence from every paragraph of P but
those
designated above.
6 THE BOOK OF GENESIS
For a more detailed account of the usage
of the words
common to
the creation and flood, see under ch. vi.-ix.,
Marks of P.
Elohim is plainly the appropriate name for
God
throughout
this section, which regards the Most High as
working in
nature and in the world at large. True,
the
creative act
may be ascribed to Jehovah (Ex. xx. 11),
when the
thought to be conveyed is that
who brought
him out of the
ator of the
world; but when the announcement to be
made simply
is that the world had a divine creator, Elo-
him is the
proper term, and is hence constantly used in
the account
of the creation.
I
THE GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVENS AND THE
EARTH (CH. II. 4-IV.)
THE question to be considered is, Do
these chapters
continue the
narrative begun in the preceding section, or
do they
introduce a new and independent narrative from
an
altogether different source? The critics
allege that
they stand
in no relation to what goes before, that a new
beginning is
here made, and that this account is taken
from another
document, that of J. It is said that the
second
chapter of Genesis cannot have been written by
the author
of the fu'st chapter; for (1) it is a second ac-
count of the
creation, and is superfluous for that reason;
(2) it
differs from the first account, and is irreconcilable
with it; (3)
the diction and style are different.
FALSE CRITICAL METHODS
The critics here bring into operation at
the outset two
vicious
methods, which characterize their whole course
of procedure
and are the most potent instruments which
they employ
in effecting the partition of the text.
The first is the arbitrary assumption that
two different
parts of a
narrative, relating to matters which are quite
distinct,
are variant accounts of the same thing.
It is
very easy to
take two narratives or two parts of the
same
narrative, which have certain points in common
8 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
but which
really describe different transactions, and lay
them
alongside of one another and point out the lack of
correspondence
between them. The artifice of the crit-
ics consists
in their identifying distinct things, and then
every
divergence of the one from the other is claimed
as evidence
that these are variant traditions, and that
these
discrepant accounts cannot be by the same author;
they must
have been taken from different documents.
Whereas,
there is no mystery in the case and no occa-
sion for any
such extraordinary conclusion. The
simple
fact is that
the writer has finished one part of his story
and has
proceeded to another; and, as might be ex-
pected, he
does not detail over again what he had just
detailed
before.
The second of the vicious methods, which
is continu-
ally
practised by the divisive critics and is one of their
most
effective weapons, also finds exemplification in the
chapters now
under consideration. It is their
constant
effort to
create a discordance where none really exists.
Passages are
sundered from their context, which eluci-
date and
determine their meaning, and then any form of
expression
which admits of a signification at variance
with what is
stated elsewhere is seized upon and pressed
to the
utmost and urged as a proof of diverse representa-
tions,
requiring the assumption of different documents;
when, if it
were only allowed to bear its natural sense in
the
connection in which it stands, all appearance of dis-
crepancy
will disappear. There is nothing for
which
the critics
seem to have such an aversion as a harmoniz-
ing
interpretation; and very naturally, for it annuls all
their
work. And yet it is the plain dictate of
common
sense that
the different parts of the same instrument
should be
interpreted in harmony, provided the language
employed
will in fairness admit of such an interpreta-
tion.
The simple observance of this obvious
rule, together
with the
principle before referred to, that things which
are really
distinct should be treated as distinct, will not
only relieve
all the critical doubts and perplexities rela-
tive to the
chapters now before us, but the great major-
ity of those
which are raised in the rest of Genesis and
author; of
the Pentateuch as well.
NO DUPLICATE ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION
That the second chapter does not contain
another ac-
count of the
creation additional to that in the first can
be readily
shown.
And in the first place it does not profess
to be an ac-
count of the
creation, but something additional to and of
their
different from it. It is in express terms declared to be
a L in the
sequel of the narrative of the creation. The second sec-
tion is
introduced by a special descriptive title (ver. 4a) :
"These
are the generations of the heavens and of the
earth when
they were created." It is very
important to
understand
the precise meaning of these words and the
purpose for
which they are introduced. There has
been
much dispute
both as to the proper connection of this
clause and
how it is to be understood.
Is it a subscription to the preceding
section, setting
forth its
contents? Or is it introductory to the
following
section and
descriptive of its contents? It can be
shown
beyond
question that it is the heading of the section that
follows, and
is here introduced to announce its subject.
The formula "These are the
generations," etc., occurs
ten times in
the book of Genesis, and in every instance
but the
present indisputably as the title of the section to
which it is
prefixed. The history is parcelled
into" the
generations
of Adam" (v. 1), "the generations of Noah "
(vi. 9),
"the generations of the sons of Noah" (x. 1),
10 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
"the
generations of Shem" (xi. 10),
"the generations of
Terah"
(ri. 27), and so on to the end of the book.
Each of these titles introduces a new
section of the
history,
longer or shorter as the case may be, and an-
nounces the
subject treated in that section. The
book
of Genesis
after the first or preliminary chapter is thus,
in the plan
of its author, divided into ten distinct sections,
to each of
which he has given a separate heading of this
uniform
pattern. They are called
"generations" be-
cause the,
framework of the entire history is a genealogy,
which is
traced in a direct line from Adam to Jacob and
his
posterity. All the facts that are
related and the
statements
made are introduced between the links of this
genealogy. The line of descent is arrested at the proper
point, the
narratives belonging there are inserted, and
then the
line of descent is taken up again just where it
left off and
proceeds as before. Divergent lines are
traced, as
occasion arises, to a sufficient distance, and are
then
dropped, the writer uniformly reverting to the main
line of
descent, that of the chosen race, which is his prin-
cipal
theme. This being the constant plan of
the book
this
formula, which in every other instance is the title
of the
section to which it is prefixed, must be the same
in this case
likewise. It is the heading of the
second
section, and
can be nothing else.
This conclusion is not only demanded by
the uniform
analogy of
the entire series of similar titles but by other
considerations
likewise:
1.
It is confirmed by the identical structure of the im-
mediately
following clause here and in v. 1, where the
connection
is unquestioned. "In the day of
Jehovah
Elohim's
making earth and heaven," follows the title
"the
generations of the heaven and of the earth," in pre-
cise
conformity with "in the day of Elohim's creating
Adam,"
after the title "the generations of Adam."
2.
If ii. 4a is a subscription to the preceding section,
then ii.
4b-iv. 26 is the only portion of the book without
a title,
while i. 1-ii. 3 will have two titles, one which is
entirely
appropriate at the beginning (i. 1), and one which
is
altogether unsuitable at the end.
3.
On the divisive hypothesis the additional incongru-
ity results,
that when the section ascribed to J (ii. 4b-ch.
iv.) is
excluded, and the connection restored, as it origi-
nally
existed in P, ii. 4a will be immediately followed by
v. 1, and
thus two titles will have stood in direct juxta-
position.
Now what does the generations of the
heavens and of
the earth
mean? It has sometimes been interpreted
to
mean an
account of the origin of the heavens and of the
earth, such
as we find in ch. i., to which it is then claimed
that this
must be attached as explanatory of the contents
of that
chapter. But neither the words
themselves nor
their usage
elsewhere will admit of this interpretation.
"The book of the generations of Adam
" (v. 1) is a list
of the
descendants of Adam. "The
generations of Noah"
(vi. 9)
records the history of Noah's family.
"The gener-
ations of
the sons of Noah" (x. 1) and "the generations
of
Shem" (xi. 10), trace the various lines of their descend-
ants. And so it is uniformly. "The generations of A
or B"
do not detail his ancestry or his origin, but either
give the
history of his immediate family or the continu-
ous line of
his descendants. And this the proper
signifi-
cation of
the Hebrew word so rendered necessarily de-
mands. It denotes "generations" in the
sense of that
which is
generated or begotten, the offspring of a pro-
genitor.
Accordingly this title, "the
generations of the heaven
and the
earth," must announce as the subject of the sec-
tion which
it introduces not an account of the way in
which the
heaven and the earth were themselves brought
12 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
into being,
but an account of the offspring of heaven and
earth; in
other words, of man who is the child of both
worlds, his
body formed of the dust of the earth, his soul
of heavenly
origin, inbreathed by God himself. And
so
the sections
proceed regularly. First, Gen. i. 1, "In
the
beginning God created the heaven and the earth," the
title
announcing that the theme of the first chapter is
the
creation. Then ii. 4, "The generations of the heav-
ens and the
earth," announcing that the theme of what
follows is
the offspring of heaven and earth, or the his-
tory of Adam
and his family. Then v. 1, "The
genera-
tions of
Adam," in which his descendants are traced to
Noah and his
sons. Then vi. 4," The generations
of
Noah,"
or the history of Noah's family, and so on to the
end of the
book.
But here we are met by Dr. Dillmann and
other lead-
ing
advocates of the divisive hypothesis, who say, It is
true that
"the generations of the heavens and the earth"
denote that
which has sprung from the heavens and the
earth; but
this is the title of ch. i. nevertheless, which
records how
grass and trees and animals and man came
forth from
the earth, and the sun, moon, and stars made
their
appearance in the heavens. This must,
therefore,
originally
have stood at the beginning of ch. i., and it has
been
transposed to its present position by the redactor.
This shows
what a useful person the redactor is in the
service of
the critics. Here is a clause which is
seriously
in their way
where it stands at present. It rivets
the
second
chapter to the first in more ways than one.
It
declares
positively that ch. ii. is not a parallel account of
the creation
taken from another source, but is a sequel
to the narrative
of the creation already given in ch. i.
Moreover,
this formula, which the critics tell us is one of
the marks of
the document P, to which the first chapter
is alleged
to belong, as distinguished from the document
J, to which
the section before us is referred, and whose
words are
the words of P and not of J, is here found at-
tached to
the wrong document, thus annulling in certain
marked
respects their favorite argument from diction and
style. It is an obstacle to be gotten rid of,
therefore, at
all
hazards. The aid of the redactor is
accordingly
called in,
and the disturbing clause is spirited away to a
safe
distance and located at the beginning of the first
chapter,
instead of the beginning of the second section,
where it
actually stands.
Only it is unfortunate that the redactor
is of no avail
in the
present instance. The clause in question
never
could have
been the title of ch. i. It is obvious
that the
heavens and
the earth must first be brought into exist-
ence before
the generations of the heavens and the earth
can be
spoken of, just as Adam and Noah must precede
the
generations of Adam and the generations of Noah.
Besides, it
would be altogether inappropriate as a title of
ch. i. The firmament and the heavenly bodies, the
seas
and the dry
land, the work of the first four days, are
identical
with the heavens and the earth, not their off-
spring. The creating and shaping of the material uni-
verse cannot
with propriety be included under the "gen-
erations"
of the heavens and the earth, and the writer of
the chapter
could never have expressed its purport in
such
terms. And even the vegetable and animal
prod-
ucts, which
by creative fiat were made to issue from the
earth on the
third, fifth, and sixth days, were wholly of
an earthly,
not a heavenly, mould. And the title, if
un-
derstood of
such products, would stand in no relation to
the
subsequent titles of the book. Grass and
trees and
animals
supply no stepping-stone to the next title, the
Generations
of Adam. It is only Adam himself that
can
do
this. It is not until ver. 26 that the
creation of man
is
reached. And man in ch. i. is considered
simply in his
14 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
place in the
general scheme of created things. He is
in-
troduced
into the world; but there is no record of what
befell him
or his family, such as we are authorized to ex-
pect, such
as is in fact given in ii. 4b-iv. 26.
Every sim-
ilar title
in Genesis is followed either by a history of the
immediate
offspring or by successive generations of de-
scendants.
The clause which we have been considering
is an ob-
stacle to
the partition of the first two chapters which it
has not been
possible to remove by any critical device.
It plainly
declares the subject of the second section to
be not the
creation of the world, but the formation of
man and the
first stage of human history.
It remains to be added that an examination
of the
second
section itself will show that it does not in point
of fact
contain a fresh account of the creation.
The
opening
words, "In the day that Jehovah God made the
earth and
the heavens," do not introduce an account of
making earth
arid heaven, but presuppose it as having
already
taken place, and the writer proceeds to indicate
the
condition of things when it was done and what fol-
lowed
subsequently. No mention is made of the
forma-
tion of the
earth or the production of the dry land; none
of the sea
and its occupants; none of the firmament or of
the sun,
moon, and stars; none of covering the earth with
its varied
vegetation, but only of planting a garden in
When
banished from
the field
"(iii. 18), whose existence is thus assumed, but
whose
production is only spoken of in ch. i.
These par-
ticulars
could not be omitted from an account of the crea-
tion. To say, as is done by Dr. Dillmann, that they
may
originally
have been contained in ch. ii., but were omitted
by R because
they were treated sufficiently in ch. i., is to
make an
assumption without a particle of evidence,
which
amounts simply to a confession that ch. ii. is not
what it
would have been if the writer had intended to
give a
narrative of the creation, and that its omissions
are with
definite reference to the contents of ch. i.
In
other words,
ch. ii. has no claim to be regarded as a sep-
arate and
complete account of the creation; and it has
not been
prepared independently of ch. i., but is design-
edly
supplementary to it.
Chapter ii. has thus far been considered
negatively,
and it has
been shown what it is not. It is not a
second
account of
the creation; and it has not been prepared in-
dependently
of ch. i. and without regard to the contents
of that
first chapter. It is now in order to
state posi-
tively what
ch. ii. actually is. It is evidently
through-
out
preliminary to ch. iii., the narrative of the fall. In
order to
make this intelligible it was necessary to ex-
plain (1),
the two constituents of man's nature, his body
formed of
the dust of the ground, and the breath of life
imparted
directly by God himself (ver. 7). It was
neces-
sary that
this should be known, that the reader might
comprehend
on the one hand the potential immortality
set within
his reach, and on the other the sentence ac-
tually
incurred that dust must return to dust (iii. 19).
(2) The
locality, which was the scene of the temptation
and fall,
the garden of Eden, with its tree of life and the
tree of the
knowledge of good and evil (vs.8-17).
(3)
The actors,
Adam and Eve, in their superiority to the
rest of the
creation, and their relation to each other (vs.
18-25). These particulars could not have been incor-
porated in
ch. i. without marring its symmetry.
That
deals with
the creation of the world at large.
Every-
thing is on
a universal scale. And to introduce a
de-
tailed
description of the garden of Eden, with its arrange-
ments and
man's position in it, would have been quite
inappropriate. The plan and purpose of ch. i. made it
16 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
necessary to
reserve this for the following section, and
it is
accordingly given in ch. ii.
It follows from what has been said that
all compari-
sons made,
or contrasts drawn, between ch. i. and ch. ii.
on the
assumption that they are separate and indepen-
dent
accounts of the same transaction are necessarily fal-
lacious. In the one the scene embraces the whole world
with all
that it contains. In the other it is
limited to the
garden of
Eden, which is fitted up for the habitation of
the first
human pair. The first advances by a
succession
of almighty
fiats from the initial production of inanimate
matter to
the culmination of the whole grand process in
the creation
of man in the image of God. The second
deals
exclusively with the primitive state of man, which
is minutely
explained with a special view to the tempta-
tion and
fall; all is on the plane of individual life and
moves
steadily forward to that first transgression by
which man
lost his original holiness and communion
with
God. The second chapter is thus in no
sense par-
allel to the
first, but is its natural sequel. It is
the suc-
ceeding
scene in the sacred history, the next act; so to
speak, in
the divine drama which is here transacting.
It
introduces
the reader to a new and distinct stage in the
unfolding of
that plan of God which it is the purpose of
the book of
Genesis to record.
With such marked differences in the
design and the
contents of
the two chapters, it follows, of course, that each
has a
character of its own distinct from the other.
It is
very easy to
set one over against the other and to point
out their
distinctive qualities. But the
dissimilar feat-
ures, which
so readily offer themselves to the observer,
result
directly and necessarily from the diversity of the
subjects
respectively treated in each, and require no as-
sumption of
the idiosyncrasies of different writers or the
peculiarities
of separate documents to account for them.
Thus, for example, if it be said with Dr.
Harper (" He-
braica,"
vol. i., pp. 25-27) that ch. i. is " generic," dealing
with species
and classes, and ch. ii. is "individual," how
could they
be otherwise, considering their respective
themes? One records the formation of the world as a
whole, and
of the various orders of beings that are
in it; the
other deals specifically with the first human
pair.
If it be said that the first chapter is
"systematic,"
"chronological,"
and "scientific," the reason is that the
nature of
its subject brings these features into marked
prominence. When the work of six successive days is
to be
stated, each advancing upon the preceding by reg-
ular
gradations, and together embracing all the various
ranks of
created things, the subject itself prescribes the
mode of
treatment adapted to it, which must be system-
atic,
chronological, and scientific, if the theme proposed
is to be
clearly and satisfactorily presented.
But why
should a
writer who shows his capacity for the classifi-
cation of
genera and species where his subject demands
it, lug in
his scientific terms or methods where no such
classification
is called for? If he has pursued a
chrono-
logical
method in ch. i., where the subject divides itself
into
successive periods, what is to hinder his adoption of
a topical
method in chs. ii. and iii., where he groups the
various
incidents and particulars with masterly skill, and
all leads as
directly up to the catastrophe of the fall as
in ch. i.
all marches steadily forward to the Sabbath-day
of
rest? There is as clear evidence of
system in the
logical
order of the narration in chs. ii. and iii. as in the
chronological
order of ch. i. And there is the same
graphic
power and masterly presentation in the grand
and majestic
tableaux of ch. i. as in the simple and
touching
scenes so delicately depicted in chs. ii. and iii.
When it is
said that ch. ii. is "picturesque and poet-
18 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
ical,"
it may "be said with equal propriety that ch. i. is
sublimely
poetical. The scenes are drawn in bold
relief,
and stand as
vividly before the reader as anything in the
chapters
that follow; only the scenes themselves are of a
different
description. One gives the impression of
im-
mensity and
power and vast terrestrial changes; the
other of
beauty and pathos and the development of per-
sonal
character. Cannot the same writer handle diverse
themes? And if he do, must he not be expected to
treat
each in he
way appropriate to itself ?
It is claimed that ch. i. deals in
"stereotyped"
phrases and
is "verbose and repetitious," while the
style of
chs. ii. and iii. is "free and flowing." This
again is due
to the nature of the subjects with which
they
respectively deal. Ch. i. is monumental,
conducted
on a scale
of vastness and magnificence, and its charac-
ters are
massive and unyielding as if carved in granite.
Chs. ii. and
iii. deal with plastic forms of quiet beauty,
the charms
of paradise, the fateful experiences of Adam
and
Eve. In the onward progress of creation
all is con-
ducted by
the word of omnipotence, to which the result
precisely
corresponds. To mark this correspondence
in
the most
emphatic manner, the command is issued in
explicit
terms; and the answering result, which exactly
matches it,
is described in identical language. There
are,
besides,
certain constant and abiding features, which
characterize
the creative work from first to last, and
which abide
the same in the midst of all the majestic
changes
which are going forward. There is the
regu-
lar
recurrence of each creative day, of the daily putting
forth of
almighty power, of God's approval of his work
which
perfectly represents the divine idea, the name
given to
indicate its character, the blessing bestowed to
enable it to
accomplish its end. To mark all this in
the
most
emphatic manner, the identical phrases are re-
peated
throughout from first to last. The
solemn and
impressive
monotone, which thus runs through the
whole,
heightens the grandeur of the description, and is
suggestive
of that divine serenity which steadily and un-
deviatingly
moves onward in its appointed course, while
the
ponderous periods aptly befit the massive objects
with which
they deal. There is no call for such a
style
in simple narrative
like ch. ii., where it would be utterly
out of place
and stilted in the extreme. That the
char-
acteristics
which have been referred to are due to the
subject of
ch. i., and not to some imaginary peculiarity
of the
writer, is plain, even if the critical partition of
Genesis were
accepted. For the narratives, which the
critics
assign to the same document as ch. i., differ as
widely from
it as ch. ii. does.
In like manner Dr. Dillmann urges, in
proof of a di-
versity of
writers, that the author of ch. i. "restricts
himself to
the great facts without entering in an explan-
atory way
into particular details," and that he uses "a
ceremonious,
solemn, formal style of writing," as dis-
tinguished
from the "evenness" of chs. ii. and iii. This
is
sufficiently answered in what has been already said.
The
difference arises from the nature of the subject, not
from the
habit of the writer. As Dr. Dillmann himself
justly
says: "The author in writing was
fully conscious
of the
unique loftiness of his subject; there is not a
word too
much, yet all is clear and well defined; no-
where is
there anything artificial and far-fetched; only
once in an
appropriate place he allows himself to rise to
elevated
poetic speech (ver. 27); even the expressions
savoring of
a remote antiquity, which he here and there
employs (vs.
2, 24), have evidently come down to him
with the
matter from the olden time, and serve admi-
rably to
enhance the impression of exalted dignity."
It is said that ch. i. proceeds from the
lower to the
20 GENERATIONS OF REA VEN AND EARTH
higher,
ending with man; while, on the contrary, ch. ii.
begins with
the highest, viz., with man, and proceeds to
the lower
forms of life. But as ch. ii. continues
the his-
tory begun
in ch. i., it naturally starts where ch. i. ends,
that is to
say, with the creation of man, especially as the
whole object
of the chapter is to depict his primitive
condition.
These various contrasts between ch. i.
and ii. explain
themselves at
once, as has now been shown from the di-
versity of
theme. They could only be supposed to
lend
support to
the critical hypothesis of different documents
on the false
assumption that the theme of both chapters
was the
same.
NO DISCREPANCIES.
While each of these chapters pursues
consistently and
steadily its
own proper aim, they have certain points of
contact, in
which it is to be remarked that the second
chapter
supplements the first, but there is no discrep-
ancy between
them. In fact it is as inconsistent with
the
document
hypothesis as it is with that of unity of
authorship
to suppose that we have here two divergent
stories of
the creation. The redactor does not
place
them side by
side, as two varying accounts, which he
makes no attempt
to reconcile, but lays before his read-
ers
precisely as he found them. There is no
intimation
that they
are alternatives, one or the other of which may
be accepted
at pleasure. On the contrary, chs. i.
and ii.
are recorded
as equally true and to be credited alike.
The
inference cannot reasonably be avoided that the re-
dactor, if
there was one, saw no inconsistency in these
narratives. Elsewhere the critics tell us he has
corrected
divergent
accounts into harmony. He could have
seen
no need of
correction here, for he has made none.
The
case is
supposable indeed that some minute and subtle
inconsistency
may have escaped his notice. But there
can be no
open or glaring inconsistency, or he would
have
detected and removed it, or at least remarked upon
it. To suppose otherwise is to charge him with
defi-
ciency in
ordinary intelligence.
The first chapter continues the narrative
of the crea-
tion until
the crowning-piece was put upon the work by
making man
in the image of God, and giving him, as
God's
vicegerent, dominion over all in this lower world.
To prepare
the way for the history of the temptation and
fall, which
comes next in order, it was needful to give
further
particulars respecting man's primitive condition,
which it
would have been incongruous to include in the
general
account of the creation of the world in ch. i.
These are
accordingly supplied in ch. ii.
One of these particulars is his location
in the garden
of
way to the
description of this garden, the writer reminds
his readers,
in precise conformity with ch. i., that when
heaven and
earth were first made the latter contained
nothing for
the subsistence of man. Ch. ii. 4, 5
should be
rendered,
"In the day that Jehovah God made earth and
heaven no
bush of the field was yet in the earth, and no
herb of the
field had yet sprung up." There was
neither
bush nor
herb to serve man for food. The threefold
classification
of i. 11, 12--grass, herb, and tree--is not
repeated
here, for grass was the food of beasts, and there-
fore not to
the purpose. "Bush" is used
rather than
"tree,"
to make the negative stronger. There was
not
only no
tree, there was not even a bush.
Subsequently
trees (ii.
9) and herbs (iii. 18) are named, as the plants
yielding
food for human use, just as in i. 29.
The suggestion that in ch. i. both trees
and herbs are
assigned to
man as his food from the beginning, while in
22 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
chs.
ii., iii. he eats the fruit of trees in
condemned to
eat herbs after his fall (iii. 18), overlooks
the real
point of contrast, which is not between trees and
herbs, but
between the trees of the garden and the herb
of the
field, between the tillage of paradise and gaining
his bread by
the sweat of his face from a reluctant soil
bringing
forth thistles and thorns. Only trees
are ex-
pressly
spoken of in
of
obedience, and another the pledge of immortal life;
but there is
no more reason for denying the existence of
esculent
herbs in paradise than for assuming that there
were no
fruit-trees outside of it.
The form of expression, "In the day
that Jehovah
God made
earth and heaven," has given occasion to cavil,
as though
that was here assigned to one day, which ch. i.
divides
between the second and third creative days.
It
might as
well be said that Num. iii. 1, "In the day that
Jehovah
spake unto Moses in
all the
revelations given to Moses at Sinai were made
within the
compass of a single day; or that " the day of
adversity
"means a period of twenty-four hours.
The
use of
"day," in the general sense of "time" is too fa-
miliar to
require further comment.
The reason given for the absence of
food-bearing
plants is
twofold; there was no rain to moisten the
earth, and
no man to till the ground.1
There is no vari-
ance, here
with ch. i. The suggestion that if the
land
had just
emerged from the water, rain would not be
1 My friend, Dr. C. M. Mead, of Hartford
Theological Seminary,
in casual
conversation on this subject suggested what, if my memory
serves me,
was also maintained by Ebrard in a little tract on Natural
Science and
the Bible, issued several years since, that the last clause
of ii. 5 is
not connected with that which immediately precedes.
"There
was no plant (for there had been no rain), and there was no
man." Upon this construction there is not even the semblance
of an
intimation
that man existed before plants.
needed,
leaves out of view that according to i. 9, 10, the
separation
of land and water was complete, and the earth
was dry
land, before any plants appeared upon its sur-
face. A well-watered garden with ever-flowing
streams
was to be
the abode of man; in anticipation of this it
was natural
to refer to the need of rain. And there
is
no
implication that man was made prior to the existence
of
vegetation, contrary to i. 12, 27. For
1. Ch. ii. alleges nothing respecting the
relative prior-
ity of man
or plants. It does not deal with the
general
vegetation
of the globe any further than to carry us back
to a time
when it did not exist. Of its actual
production
ch. ii. says
nothing. Its positive statement is
restricted
to the trees
of the garden of Eden (vs. 8, 9), and we are
nowhere
informed that these were brought into being at
the same
time with vegetation elsewhere. Nothing
is
said of the
origin of grass and herbs, or of trees, outside
of
says: "One would expect that in what follows,
either
before or
after ver. 7, mention should be made of the
production
of the vegetable world, and completing the
formation of
the world itself. But there is nothing
of
the
sort. There can hardly have been such a
gap orig-
inally; it
rather appears that something has been omitted
by R, either
because it seemed a needless repetition after
ch. i., or
disagreed with ch. i." The passage
does not ful-
fil the
critics' expectation, for the simple reason that the
writer had
no such intention as they impute to him.
He
is not
giving another account of the creation.
He is
merely going
to speak of the garden of Eden; and that
is all he
does.
2. The existence of man is stated to be a
condition of
that of
plants designed for human use, not as an ante-
cedent but
as a concomitant. His tillage is
requisite (ii.
5), not to
their production but to their subsequent care
24 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
and
cultivation. Jehovah planted the garden
and made
the trees
grow in it, and then set man to till it, ver. 15,
where the
same verb is used as in ver. 5.
3.
The order of statement is plainly not that of time,
but of
association in thought. Ver. 7, man is
formed;
ver. 8, the
garden is planted and man put in it; ver. 9,
trees are
made to spring up there; ver. 15, man is taken
and put in
it. We cannot suppose the writer's
meaning
to be that
man was made before there was any place in
which to put
him, and that he was kept in suspense until
the garden
was planted; that he was then put there be-
fore the
trees that were to supply him with food had
sprung up;
and that after the trees were in readiness he
was put
there a second time. It is easy to
deduce the
most
preposterous conclusions from a writer's words by
imputing to
them a sense which he never intended. In
order to
pave the way for an account of the primitive
paradise, he
had spoken of the earth as originally desti-
tute of any
plants on which man might subsist, the ex-
istence of
such plants being conditioned on that of man
himself. This naturally leads him to speak, first, of
the
formation of
man (ver. 7); then of the garden in which
he was put
(ver. 8). A more particular description
of the
garden is
then given (vs.9-14), and the narrative is again
resumed by
repeating that man was placed there (ver. 15).
As there was
plainly no intention to note the strict
chronological
succession of events, it cannot in fairness
be inferred
from the order of the narrative that man was
made prior
to the trees and plants of
1The critics' assumption that vs. 10-15 is an interpolation, inasmuch
as the
description of the garden is a departure from strict narrative
which is
afterward resumed, as well as Budde's notion (Biblische Ur-
geschichte,
pp. 48 sqq.) that the tree of life is to be erased from ver. 9
and
elsewhere, as not belonging to the narrative originally, deserve
notice only
as illustrating the perfectly arbitrary standard of genuine-
ness which
is set up.
that he
preceded those of the world at large, of which
nothing is
here said.
But what cannot be accomplished by the
order of the
narrative
some critics propose to effect by means of a
grammatical
construction. They put vs. 5, 6, in a
paren-
thesis, and
link ver. 4 directly to ver. 7, and read thus:
Ver.4, In
the day that Jehovah God made the earth and
the heavens
(ver. 5, Now no bush of the field was yet in
the earth,
and no herb of the field had yet sprung up;
for Jehovah
God had not caused it to rain upon the earth,
and there
was not a man to till the ground. Ver.
6, And
there went
up vapor from the earth, and watered the
whole face
of the ground). Ver. 7, Then Jehovah God
formed man,
etc. The meaning will then be: "In the day
that Jehovah
God made earth and heaven, Jehovah God
formed man
of the dust of the ground, while no bush of
the field
was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field
had yet
sprung up." But apart from the fact
that the
assumption
of so long a parenthesis is of very doubtful
propriety in
Hebrew construction generally, it is abso-
lutely
impossible here. Ver. 5 states a twofold
reason
why there
were no plants adapted to human use; there
had been no
rain and there was no man to use them.
The first of
these conditions is supplied in ver. 6, vapor
rises, and
falling in rain waters the ground; the second, in
ver. 7, man
is made; vs. 6 and 7 must accordingly
stand in
like relation to ver. 5, so that ver. 6 cannot be
included in
the parenthesis and ver. 7 be linked back to
ver. 4.
Furthermore, ch. ii. does not contradict
ch. i. in re-
spect to the
order of the creation of man and of the
lower
animals. The allegation that it does
rests upon the
assumption
that the Hebrew tense here used necessarily
implies a
sequence in the order of time, which is not
correct. The record is (ver. 19), "And out of the
ground
26 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
Jehovah God
formed all the beasts of the field, and all
the fowls of
heaven, and brought them to Adam."
Ac-
cording to
Hebrew usage this need not mean that the
formation of
the birds and the beasts was subsequent to
all that is
previously recorded in the chapter, or that they
were then
first formed with the view of providing a suit-
able
companion for Adam. And when the scope
of the
passage is
duly considered it will be seen that this can-
not be its
meaning.
It is a significant fact that Dr.
Delitzsch, who is an
adherent of
the document hypothesis, and can be sus-
pected of no
bias against it, and who in all the former
editions of
his "Commentary on Genesis" found ch. i.
and ch. ii
at variance on this point, in the, last edition,
embodying
his most matured views, affirms that there is
no
discrepancy whatever, that "et formavit . . . et
adduxit ==
et cum form asset adduxit," and that this is
both possible
in point of style and consonant to the
mode of
writing in the Bible history.
The English rendering which best suggests
the rela-
tion of the
clauses is, "Jehovah God having formed out
of the
ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of
heaven,
brought them unto the man." The
Hebrew
phrase
suggests that forming the animals preceded their
being
brought to the man, but need not suggest anything
whatever as
to the relation of time between their forma-
tion and
what had been mentioned just before in the nar-
rative. In numberless passages in the English version
of the Bible
similar expressions are paraphrased in order
to express
this subordination of the first verb to the
second. Thus in Gen. iii. 6 the Hebrew reads,
"And
the woman saw
that the tree was good for food, . . .
and she took
of the fruit thereof," for which the English
version
correctly substitutes, "And when
the woman saw
. . . she
took." It might with equal
propriety be
PRIMITIVE
STATE OF MAN (CH. ii. 4-III. 24) 27
rendered,
"The woman seeing that the tree was good for
food . . .
took of the fruit thereof. "
Dr. Dillmann admits that the tense here
used might
antedate
what immediately precedes, but insists that ver.
18, "I will make him an help meet for
him," implies that
the animals
were now made as well as brought to Adam.
But to
suppose that the beasts and birds were made in
execution of
this divine purpose is not only a grotesque
conception
in itself, but involves the incongruity that the
LORD'S first
attempts were failures. If there are
critics
who account
this "the natural interpretation," it is in
the face of
the whole Israelitish conception of God as
expressed by
every writer in the Old Testament.
serve that
God's original purpose, as here announced, is
not I will
make him a companion of some sort, or such a
companion as
he may be willing to have, but I will make
him an help
meet for him, or, more exactly rendered, a
help
corresponding to him, a precise counterpart to him-
self. The beasts were brought to Adam not as the
com-
panion
intended for him, but "to see what he would call
them," i.e.,
to let them make their impression on him and
thus awaken
in his mind a sense both of his need of com-
panionship
and of their unfitness for the purpose.
When
this had
been accomplished Eve was made. The ani-
mals are
here regarded simply with a view to this end.
If the
writer were describing the creation of the inferior
animals as
such, he would speak of all the orders of liv-
ing things,
not neglecting reptiles and aquatic animals.
The LORD made the birds and beasts and
brought them
to
Adam. The main point is that they were
brought to
Adam. It was of no consequence, so far as the imme-
diate
purpose of the narrative is concerned, when they
were made,
whether before Adam or after, and the mere
order of
statement cannot in fairness be pressed as
though it
determined the order of time in this particu-
28 GENERATIONS
OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
lar. If, however, this is insisted upon, and we
are told
that
according to the "natural interpretation" of this
passage it
teaches that the birds and beasts were not
made until
after Adam, then it must be said that the
same sort of
"natural interpretation" will create absurd-
ities and
contradictions in many other passages beside.
Thus in Gen.
xxiv. 64, 65, "Rebekah saw Isaac and light-
ed off the
camel, and she said to the servant, What man
is this, and
the servant said, It is my master."
Here, if
the order of
statement is made the order of time, Re-
bekah
alighted, out of respect to her future husband, be-
fore she had
inquired and learned who the man was that
she
saw. So Ex. iv. 31, "And the people
believed and
they heard,
. . . and they bowed their heads and wor-
shipped." According to this the people believed the
words of
Moses and Aaron before they heard them.
It
is said of
the men sent by Joshua to spy out
(Josh. ii.
22), "They came unto the mountain
and abode
there three
days until the pursuers were returned; and
the pursuers
sought them and found them not."
From
which it
appears that the pursuers returned from their
unsuccessful
search before their search was begun.
The
old prophet
in
who came
from
went
he? And his sons saw what way the man of
God
went." Here "saw" is plainly equivalent to
"had seen,"
since the
man had left some time before. Isa. xxxvii.
2-5,
Hezekiah sent Eliakim and others to Isaiah, and
they said
unto him, Thus saith Hezekiah so and so:
and the
servants of Hezekiah came to Isaiah and Isaiah
said unto
them, etc. That is, they told Isaiah
what they
had been
bidden to say before they came to him.
Deut.
xxxi.
9, "And Moses wrote this law and
delivered it
unto the
priests," i. e., he delivered to them the law
which he had
written; the delivery of the law was subse-
quent to the
address to Joshua (vers. 7, 8), but not the
writing of
it.
Now, any candid man may judge whether
declining to
accept a
principle of interpretation which leads to such
absurd
results can be called wresting Scripture from its
natural
sense? If not, then no suspicion of
wresting
Scripture
language can possibly attach to the assertion
that there
is not a shadow of contrariety between ch. i.
and ch. ii.
in respect to the order of creation.
It is clear that the alleged
inconsistencies do not exist
in the
record but are of the critics' own making.
It is
surprising
that they do not see that in their eagerness to
create
discrepancies in evidence of a diversity of writers
they are
cutting away the ground beneath their own
feet. Glaring discrepancies might consist with the
frag-
mentary but
not with the documentary hypothesis. The
manner in
which these documents are supposed to be
woven
together demands a high degree of skill and intel-
ligence in
the redactor; and to allege at the same time
that
"he did not have insight sufficient to enable him to
see that he
was all the time committing grave blunders"
is
self-contradictory.
In the diction of these chapters Dillmann
notes the
following
words and phrases as indicative of J :
1. hWAfA make or rcayA form, instead of xrABA create, as in ch. i.
But
"make" is used ten times in the first section, and of
the same
things as "create," cf. i. 1 with vs. 7, 8; i. 26
with ver.
27; i.21 with ver. 25, ii. 3. In ch. i.
the promi-
nent thought
is that of the immediate exercise of divine
almighty
power, hence, ver. 1, "God created the heaven
and the
earth;" ver. 21, "created whales and winged fowl;"
ver. 27,
"created man," so v. i. 2; "all which God created"
ii. 3; and
these are all the P passages in which the word
occurs. Ch. ii. directs attention to the material, of
which
the bodies
were composed; hence, ver. 7, "formed man
30 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
of
dust;" ver. 19, "formed beasts out of the ground." In
Isa. xliii.
1; xlv. 7, 12, 18, "create," "form," and "make "
are used
together, and in the same sentence, of God's
creative
agency. "Form" occurs nowhere
in the Hexa-
teuch except
in this chapter; in the only other instance
in which the
creation of man is alluded to in a paragraph
assigned to
J, Gen. vi. 7 the word "create" is used; it
likewise
occurs in Ex. xxxiv. 10; Num. xvi. 30 J.
And if
the absence
of "form" from the rest of J has no signifi-
cance, why
is there any in its absence from P?
2. hd,W.Aha tY.aHa beast of the field (ii.19, 20; iii. 1, 14) instead
of Cr,xAhA
ty>aHa beast
of the earth, as i. 24,
25; also hd,W.Aha HayWi
bush of the
field (ii.
5), hc,W.Ah
bW,fe herb
of the field (ii. 5;
iii.
18). The open field is here in tacit contrast with
the en-
closed and
cultivated garden; cr. iii. 18.
"Beast of the
field"
is the ordinary phrase throughout the Bible.
But
when
terrestrial are contrasted with aquatic animals
(i. 21, 22),
and especially when the whole broad earth
is spoken
of, they are naturally called "beasts of the earth."
3. MraPaha this
time, now (ii. 23). See chs. xviii.,
xix.
Marks of J,
No.9.
4. rIbfEBa because (iii. 17). See chs.
vi.-ix., Marks of J,
No. 17.
5. yTil;bil; not to (iii. 11). See chs. xvii.,
xix., Marks of
J, No. 14.
6. txz.o hma what
is this (iii. 13). See ch. xii.
10-22,
Marks of J,
No.7.
7.
NObc,Afi sorrow, toil (iii 16, 17); it occurs
but once
besides in
the Old Testament (v. 29), and with express
allusion to
this passage.
8. wreGe drive out
(iii. 24). See ch. xxi. 1-21, Marks of
E, No.5.
9. lOql;
fmawA
hearken unto the voice (iii. 17). See ch.
xvi., Marks
of J, No. 8.
10. hBAr;hi hBAr;ha greatly multiply (iii. 16). See ch. xvi.,
Marks of J,
No. 10.
Jehovah is distinctively the God of
revelation and of
redemption;
hence in this section, where God's grace to
man is the
prominent thought, his care and favor be-
stowed upon
him in his original estate, the primal prom-
ise of mercy
after the fall, and the goodness mingled with
severity
which marked the whole ordering of his condi-
tion
subsequently, that salutary course of discipline which
was
instituted with a view to gracious ends, Jehovah is
appropriately
used. At the same time, to make it plain
that Jehovah
is not a different or inferior deity, but that
the God of
grace is one with God the Creator, Jehovah
Elohim are
here combined. In the interview of Eve
with
the serpent
(iii. 1-5), however, Elohim is used, as is cus-
tomary when
aliens speak or are spoken to. This
shows
that these
names are used discriminatingly, and that the
employment
of one or the other is regulated not by the
mere habit
of different writers, but by their suitableness
to the
subject-matter.
It is alleged that a different conception
of God is pre-
sented in
this section from that which is found in the
preceding. "Jehovah forms men and beasts, breathes
the
breath of
life into man's nostrils, builds a rib into a woman,
plants a garden, takes a man and puts
him into it, brings
the beasts
to the man, walks in the cool of the day, speaks
(iii. 22) as
though he were jealous of the man."
But as
Elohim and
Jehovah are words of different signification
and
represent the Most High under different aspects of
his being,
they must when used correctly and with regard
to their
proper meaning be associated with different con-
ceptions of
God, This does not argue a diversity of
writers, but
simply that the divine name has each time
been
selected in accordance with the idea to be expressed,
Elohim is the more general designation of
God as the
32 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
Creator and
providential Governor of the world and of
all
mankind. Jehovah is his personal name,
and that by
which he has
made himself known when entering into
close
relations with men, and particularly the chosen race,
as the God
of revelation and grace. The intimacy
thus
established
between the Creator and the creature involves
a
condescension to man and placing himself in accord
with man,
which requires anthropomorphisms for its ex-
pression and
can be made intelligible in no other way.
There is not
the slightest inconsistency between the an-
thropomorphisms
of chs. ii., iii., and the lofty conceptions
of ch. i.,
and no ground whatever for assuming that they
are the
ideas of distinct writers. They abound
alike in the
Prophets and
in the Psalms, where they are freely in-
termingled
in their devout utterances. With one
breath
the Psalmist
speaks of God as knowing the secrets of the
heart (xliv.
22), and with the next calls upon him, "Awake,
why sleepest
thou?" (ver. 24). Ps. cxxxix. links
with the
most exalted
description in human language of the omni-
presence and
omniscience of the infinite God the prayer,
(ver. 23),
"Search me and know my heart," as though it
was
necessary for the Most High to make a careful in-
vestigation
in order to ascertain what is hidden there.
It should be observed further that the
preceding sec-
tion, with
all its grandeur and simplicity, has its anthro-
pomorphisms
likewise. Each creative fiat is uttered
in human
language (i. 3, 6 sqq.). God
"called the light
MOy"
(i. 5), giving Hebrew names to that and various other
objects. He "saw the light that it was good"
(i. 4), thus
inspecting
the work of each day and pronouncing upon
its
quality. He uttered a formula of
blessing upon the
various
orders of living things (i. 22, 28). He
deliberated
with himself
prior to the creation of man (i. 26).
Man
was made
"in the image of God," an expression which
has been
wrested to imply a material form. Time
was
spent upon
the work, and this was divided into six suc-
cessive
days, like so many working periods of men.
When the
work ,vas done, God rested on the seventh
day (ii. 2);
and thus the week was completed, another
human
measure of time. All this is
anthropomorphic.
He who would
speak intelligibly to finite comprehension
of the
infinite God must use anthropomorphisms.
The
difference
is not of kind, but of degree.
MUTUAL
RELATION OF THIS AND THE PRECEDING SECTION.
The inter-relation between these sections
is such as to
show that
they cannot be, as the critics claim, from sep-
arate and
independent documents.
1.
The distribution of the matter gives evidence of pre-
arrangement
and cannot be purely accidental. The
crea-
tion of the
world, heaven, earth, and sea, with all that
they
contain, is described in ch. i., and is assumed in ch.
ii. The latter simply gives details, which were
necessa-
rily passed
over in the plan of the former, respecting the
separate
formation of man and woman and fitting up the
garden for
their habitation. Ch. ii. 19 is the only
ap-
parent
exception to the specific and limited character of
this
section. But even this is no real
exception, since it
is obvious,
as has already been shown, that the formation
of the
beasts and birds is only incidentally mentioned as
subordinate
to the principal statement, and the one of
chief
importance in the connection that God brought
them to Adam
to receive their names. Again, God gave
names to
certain things in ch. i.; Adam gave names to
others in
chs. ii., iii.; and these are precisely adjusted to
one another,
neither duplicating nor omitting any.
God
gave names
to day and night, heaven, earth, and seas (i.
5, 8, 10),
and to Adam (v. 1). Adam gave names to
the
inferior
animals (ii. 20), and to Eve (ii. 23 ; iii. 20).
34 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
2. The title ii. 4a has been shown to belong to
this
section, and
contains explicit reference to the preceding
of which
this is declared to be the sequel. And
in the
body of the
section there are numerous allusions to, or
coincidences
with, the preceding or other so-called P sec-
tions. If the construction of i. 1 adopted by
Dillmann
be correct,
there is a striking similarity in structure be-
tween i. 1,
2 P, and ii.. 4b, 5 J, "in the beginning when
God created,
etc., the earth was waste and void," corre-
sponding to
" in the day that Jehovah God made, etc., no
bush of the
field was yet in the earth." J ii. 4b strikingly
resembles P
v. 1b in the form of expression; so do i. 4a
P and vi. 2a
J; i. 31a, vi. 12a P and viii.13b J; Cr,x,
earth,
without the
article, i. 24 P, as ii. 4 J. The
paronomasia
UhbovA UhTo (i.2),
Ubr;U
UrP; (i. 22,28) P recalls in
J MdAxA
. . .
hmAdAxE (ii.
7), wyxi... hw>Axi (ver. 23), dnAvA fnA (iv.14), rp,xevA rpAfA
(xviii.
27). The first person plural used of God
(i. 26
P),
notwithstanding the strictness of Hebrew monotheism
has its
counterpart in J, iii. 22; xi. 7. The
use of hWAfA
made (iii. 1 J) in reference to the beasts,
instead of rcayA
formed, as ii. 19 J, is a reminiscence of i. 25
P. XXXXX
cherubim (iii. 24 J) occurs in the Pentateuch
besides only
in P.
3.
The repeated occurrence of Jehovah Elohim
throughout
chs. ii., iii. is with evident reference to ch. i.
This
combination of divine names occurs nowhere else
with such
regularity and frequency, though it is found
in a few
other passages, e.g., Ex. n. 30; 2 Sam. vii. 22,
25; 1 Chron.
xvii. 16, 17; Jon. iv. 6; cf. 1 Sam. vi. 20.
This
relieves it from. Dr. Harper's charge1
of being "an
un-Hebraic
expression," and refutes the notion of Hup-
feld2
that it is adopted here without reference to ch. i.,
because as
the full name of God it was appropriate to
the state of
paradise; from which there was a descent to
1 Hebraica, vol. i., p.
23. 2 Quellen der Genesis,
p. 124.
Jehovah
alone after the fall; that of Reuss1 that it is
indicative
of a special document distinct from both P
and J, and
that of Budde2 that it arose from the com-
bination of
two documents, one of which used the name
Jehovah and
the other Elohim. In every other
passage,
in which it
is found, it denotes that Jehovah the God of
must have
the same meaning here; it can only be in-
tended to
suggest that Jehovah, now first introduced, is
identical
with Elohim before spoken of in ch. i.
This
is admitted
by the critics generally, who seek, however, to
evade the
natural inference of the common authorship of
both
sections by the assumption, which has no other
basis than
the hypothesis that it is adduced to support,
that Elohim
was inserted by R.
And while it is plain that chs. ii., iii.
is thus adjusted to
ch. i., it
is no less clear that i. 1-ii. 3 anticipates what is
to follow,
and purposely prepares the way for it.
1.
The emphasis with which it is repeated at the close
of each
creative act, "and God saw that it was good" (i.
4, 10, 12,
etc.), and affirmed at the end of the whole, "be-
hold, it was
very good" (ver. 31), would be unmeaning
except as a
designed preliminary to the reverse which
was shortly
to follow in the fall (ch. iii.). And
this,
moreover, is
necessary to explain the otherwise unac-
countable
declaration (vi. 11 P), that "the earth was cor-
rupt before
God," the mystery of which is unrelieved by
anything
that P contains.
2. Ch. ii. 3 is evidently preliminary to
the fourth com-
mandment
(Ex. xx. 8-11), which again in its terms dis-
tinctly
refers back to i. l-ii. 3. The ten
commandments
in Ex. xx.
are by the critics referred to E, with which,
according to
Dillmann, J was acquainted. He must,
1
Geschichte der heiligen Schriften d. A. T., p. 257.
2
Biblische Urgeschichte, pp. 233, 234.